alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13354-13355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03549]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

[[Page 13355]]

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel: Mechanism for Time-Sensitive 
Research Opportunities in Environmental Health Sciences (R21).
    Date: February 26, 2024.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Environmental Health Science, 530 
Davis Drive, Keystone Building, Durham, NC 27713.
    Contact Person: Varsha Shukla, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and 
Training, National Institute of Environmental Health Science, 530 
Davis Drive, Keystone Building, Room 3094, Durham, NC 27713, 984-
287-3288, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#491f283b3a2128673a213c22252809272021672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d0b3c2f2e353c732e352836313c1d333435733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 15, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03549 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Banta McCLURE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28435.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 3, 1956.

*839W. J. Bragg, Memphis, Richard D. Bird, Childress, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for selling whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

R. M. Barba, Inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that on October 18, ' 1955, while he was working as an undercover man in Memphis, Texas, he went to a cafe in Memphis where he met the appellant and there purchased from him one half-pint of whiskey for $2.50.

The state offered proof that Hall County was a dry area.

Appellant while testifying in. his own behalf stated that he had not seen the witness Barba prior to the trial, and denied that he had sold Barba whiskey at any time.

The issues of fact were resolved against the appellant by the jury and' we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.

Appellant’s complaint that the state failed to prove that the alleged sale occurred in the dry area cannot be sustained as this court will take judicial knpwledge of the fact that, Memphis, is the county seat of Hall County, Texas, and proof that the sale was made in Memphis is sufficient. McCormick and Ray, -Texas Law of Evidence, 2nd Ed., 221, Sec. 193; Lamkin v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 99, 123 S.W.2d 662; Barragan v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 12, 147 S.W.2d 254.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to ' discharge the jury and declare a mistrial upon its receipt and filing of the following written report of the jury: “Hung.jury, threé for and three - against. Foreman Robert Breedlove.”

The record shows that after the jury had retired ,to deliberate they returned into court and reported to the judge in writing as above set forth. The record is silent but evidently the judge upon receiving such statement directed the jury to return to the juryroom for further deliberation. They afterwards returned into court the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendanti-guilty,^ as charged . in■ the information,' and assess his punishment at a ■fine- of $100. Robert Breedlove, Foreman of the jury.” . Judgment was entered in accordance'with this verdict:

The first report of the jury to the judge was a mere statement by the jury of their inability to re.ach a, .verdict.. ^Whether the jury at the time of its first report should have been discharged and a mistrial ordered- or returned to the jury room for further deliberation rested in the discretion of the trial judge. There is no showing of abuse of discretion, by him in refusing to discharge the jury and declare ' a mistrial' upon' receipt of the jury’s first report. Hence no error is shown. Art, 682, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; 42 Tex.Jur. 447, Sec. 352.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Earnest Edwin HYATT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27566.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol;, the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, G. Steven Farris, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Apache Offshore Investment Partnership; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information ;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ G. Steven Farris G. Steven Farris
#### Prestell SERVANCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27633.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 25, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Elmer McVey, County Atty., Fairfield, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State,

*339PER CURIAM.

The offense is murder; the punishment, eight years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains rio statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **; G~OVLR**  **BLLLLI)S A-m.** **““ .Y** **’ OsYm** **” AL** 

### Hon. SlervelandDevla - pups 2

"1 have boon roquestinl to advise under the provisions of thie firtlolsif tb4 Sheriff of Brazorle County i4 entltlad to gay his fir4t 4ti8iGt4Xt ia OhGrge Or 

## OiVilk84tttW8the 8Wa Of $2OGG.O@ per annum and his oblei daputy ln ohaqe Of oriminal mettors the 81~4of Q2GOC.00 per onnuxiumtar this sootion Ibof Article 3902.

**“ It**  **wOU,lE Q~peSYr**  **frm rORdh@**  **%OtlOn** 2 or Artiol4 3902 thnt th4 aberirf 18 8OBiiXOd to one rlrat easiatnnt or rtr8t ds uty 

### to whom ha saripay a aelary~not to exooad x2000.00 per annua. Or.%

tbo Other hand, **8U8b a**  **,OOn8trUOtiOn** mif,,t

### be placed ox **tnir seotion**  **thnt** would eBtit&O thQ shariir to a rir8t 688$8tant in ohsr@ rzioiril matter8 4t.@OO0.00 p8r 8naum and a ohief deputy 

### in oharg8 

### of arlnlnal 

### aatter8 ~rhooan receive not to exacosod #OOO.OO p8r annum.
x 8bil **tk5Xik fOU**  **t0** 

## 4dVi8e **WhiOh Of**  **thO80 OOI%-**  **OiU8iOn5 Of**  **i8W 18**  **OOIT4Mt. ”**  After oarsfully 

### aanriid8rU@ Article 5902, Varnon~8. AXBOtekd Girt1 

## 8tatats8, tt 18 8pp8lWlt th8t lb Pa8 OOB

### tenplatedby the Is@?islstuxv that 4117

### l 8trPot, 

## oauxty QT p~eOinOf 

### orriaw roquirlngth8 8ervfoes 

### or **dagUtht8,** 

### an8ietant8 **or** olork8 in th4 

## perraraaxo8 or hi8 duties, 8uoh 

### ofriaer i8 

### OOBihed **t0 O@**  first **M48iSt8At Or**  **i%8t** deptlty **t0** whoa he aan laally pay the aaxlmu8 8alary 

### mithorieed by the **prOVi8iOX8 Of**  **8eid 8t8tllte**  **8pp11Odde** to hi8 oO&Ulty. 

### 8WtiOR e of artlole?I?OL

18 8pplloobl,8to BraIIOrl5~OoMty sad th8 nexirrun 8alary 

# sutharixed by 88id prOri8ion 

# thet oiB ls&ally h'mid th8 

# first **885i4tMl'Or** ahid 

### deputyi8 

### #Z,OOOQOX' snnua, other Pe8btant8, do uti88 or olork8 omMOt ba psid 

### an 8~~8~ 

### esl.sry gxpeading 81900 per 8lUhU 8aoh. %%4nfOrO, it l8 our opinion that tho Sherirf 0r 

### Brsaarla 4annot legally pay th4 narlmum salar;lof $2000 

### per 4nUm to ht8 8hiaI deputy nnd'e&30 pay @ClOG per 4nWm t4 4 p4r8on dO8& nat4d 48 his first 444ist4Bt.

3takd oaeth4r wry, **the** 

### Sharlff 18 OOnfiBsd to one first 44sletsnt~or rirat U4puty to whom he oan leg8lly pay 4 salary not 4xoseding $2000 psr annasuppartlng the foregoing statement, %mdlr~ot your

nt:eatiou to mr Gplnion Ho. o-91 p44sing upon a queetlon similar to 

## theonepreeanted in your ioquiry. X4 4BO1054 4 00~3 Or 84fd OptBiOR 

## fQrYOU! 005V4!11OnO4~

Yours very truly


# BY/a/ Aird*I.l rll114m8 Asalstant



### APPROVEDJAN. ES, 1944 /8/,arar*r S4114rs ATTciRUEY tX.ONtAtOF T?GW3
Early Start Late Finish 

## Phase 1A

Tilt up walls 7/6/2010 9/16/2010 Roofing 8/11/2010 10/15/2010 Acid mist scrubber 9/16/2010 12/20/2010 Baghouses 10/28/2010 12/13/2010 Torits 10/28/2010 12/17/2010 Hygiene Stack10/28/2010 12/17/2010 SO2 Scrubber10/28/2010 12/13/2010 Process Stack10/28/2010 12/20/2010 Afterburner 8/31/2010 11/29/2010 Reverb Furnace 10/14/2010 11/29/2010 Dryer system 10/14/2010 12/15/2010 Holding Kettles 10/14/2010 12/30/2010 Launch Phase 1A 1/20/2011 2/16/2011 

## Phase 1B

Tilt up walls 3/15/2011 4/25/2011 Roofing 4/13/2011 5/20/2011 Blast Furnace 5/5/2011 5/24/2011 Refining Kettles (4) 5/11/2011 5/26/2011 Launch Phase 1B 8/16/2011 8/29/2011 

## Phase 1C
Tilt up walls 10/19/2011 10/25/2011 Roofing11/16/2011 1/19/2012 Refining Kettles (2) 12/1/2011 12/20/2011 Launch Phase 1C 2/10/2012 3/23/2012 

## Phase 2 

## EnviroFocus Construction Milestones

This phase will replace the existing battery breaking, water treatment plant, afterburner, containment room, baghouses, torit systems as well as add the new Reverb furnace, dryer, 2-holding kettles and various site improvements. The two systems will run concurrently while the new systems are started up and tested.

This phase will include the blast furnace improvements, installation of 4 refining kettles. The blast and kettles will be linked to the new baghouses and torit systems.

This phase will include the final 2 refining kettles, lead lab and control rooms.

This phase will include the build out of the finished goods, spare parts, maintenance, mobile equipment and material transfer room structures.Tilt up walls 11/10/2011 12/15/2011 Roofing12/16/2011 3/2/2012 Launch Phase 2 3/12/2012 3/23/2012

This is the current construction schedule. Please note that the dates listed are subject to change for many given reasons at any given time.
**ACCOUNTANT'S
      AWARENESS LETTER**








Securities
      and Exchange Commission


450
      Fifth
      Street, N.W.


Washington,
      D.C. 20549








We
      are
      aware that our report dated April 19, 2006 on our review of the interim
      financial statements of I-Trax, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006
      and
      for the three-month period ended March 31, 2006 is incorporated by reference
      in
      the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-110891 and
      333-114604) and From S-8 (No. 333-125685). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
      Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered as part of the
      Registration Statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
      Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.








/s/
      Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP





**GOLDSTEIN
      GOLUB KESSLER LLP**


New
      York,
      New York





May
      12,
      2006
**EXHIBIT 4.4.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF OCCAM NETWORKS, INC.**

**ELIMINATING MATTERS SET FORTH IN CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF SERIES A**

**CONVERTIBLE PREFERREDSTOCK**

 

Pursuant to Section 151 of the General CorporationLaw 

of the State of Delaware 

 

I, Howard M. Bailey, do hereby certify: 

 

1. That I am the duly elected and acting Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Occam Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

 

2. That pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Board ofDirectors by the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”) and in accordance with Section 151 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the Boardof Directors of the Company adopted the following resolution stating that no shares of Preferred Stock designated as Series A Convertible Preferred Stock are outstanding and that none will be issued pursuant to the Certificate of Designation ofSeries A Convertible Preferred Stock previously filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on December 17, 2002 (the “Certificate of Designation”): 

 

“WHEREAS, at the December 16, 2002, meeting of a Special Committee of the Board, the Special Committee approved the sale and issuance of up to2,000,000 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) issuable in accordance with the terms of the Certificate of Designation. 

 

WHEREAS, at the Company’s Annual Stockholder meeting held on May 29,2003, the Company’s stockholders approved the amendment of the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the authorized number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock to permit the automatic conversion ofthe Series A Preferred Stock; 

 

WHEREAS, such amendment wasfiled and all outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock were converted into Common Stock in accordance with Section 6(a) of the Certificate of Designation such that there are no outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock; 

 

WHEREAS, the Company does not intend to sell or issue any additional sharesof Series A Preferred Stock subject to the Certificate of Designation; 

 

RESOLVED: That no further shares of Series A Preferred Stock of the Company are currently issued or outstanding, and shares of Series A Preferred Stock shall be issued in accordance with the Certificate of Designation. 

 

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the officers of the Company are authorized to executeany documents and to make any filings necessary to effectuate the elimination from the Certificate of Incorporation of all matters set forth in the Certificate of Designation. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Occam Networks, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be executed by Howard M. Bailey, its Secretary and Chief FinancialOfficer, this 12th day of June, 2003.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13309-13310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03567]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 2159]


Approval of Subzone Status; PR Five Vega Alta, LLC; Vega Alta, 
Puerto Rico

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18,

[[Page 13310]]

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for ``. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of subzones for specific uses;
    Whereas, the Department of Economic Development and Commerce, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 61, has made application to the Board for 
the establishment of a subzone at the facility of PR Five Vega Alta, 
LLC, located in Vega Alta, Puerto Rico (FTZ Docket B-56-2023, docketed 
November 1, 2023);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (88 FR 76168, November 6, 2023) and the application 
has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiners' memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves subzone status at the 
facility of PR Five Vega Alta, LLC, located in Vega Alta, Puerto Rico 
(Subzone 61AD), as described in the application and Federal Register 
notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including 
section 400.13.

    Dated: February 15, 2024.
Dawn Shackleford,
Executive Director of Trade Agreements Policy & Negotiations, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-03567 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Antonio ALMAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28277.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1956.

J. G. Gonzalez, San Diego, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon trial under an indictment charging him with the offense of assault with intent to murder one Pat Rodgers, appellant was found guilty of the offense of aggravated assault and the jury assessed his punishment at one year in jail.

The charge of the court submitted only the offense of aggravated assault and simple assault, and instructed the jury to acquit upon a finding that the assault was committed as a means of defense against an unlawful attack made upon him by Pat Rodgers.

Pat Rodgers testified that appellant, following an argument, struck Ernesto Rogers, his cousin, over the head with a beer bottle; that when he saw this he (Pat Rodgers) grabbed or struck appellant and they wound up on the floor; that after they were separated and were on their feet appellant struck him in the face with a knife.

There is other evidence from which the jury was authorized to find that the knife *677with which appellant committed the assault was a quick opening' knife; one equipped with a button which when pressed' caused the blade, some four inches long, to fly open.

We find no error in the admission of the evidence identifying and describing the knife thereafter shown to be that used by appellant and thrown into the cloak room or wash room after Rodgers was cut.

Nor do we find merit in the complaint addressed to the remark of the judge in ruling upon the objection to said testimony when he inquired “Is that the knife that was used?”

The district attorney assured the court that the knife would be so identified by other testimony and it was.

We know of no rule of law which would prevent the State from calling the prosecuting witness because his face bore a large scar from the knife wound inflicted upon him by appellant. If the appearance of the scar was aggravated by improper medical treatment, as suggested, appellant could have shown that fact. But the State was clearly entitled to call the witness and introduce his testimony.

The contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding that the knife used in the assault was a deadly weapon is overruled. As used the knife with a four inch blade was sufficiently shown to be a deadly weapon.

In this connection we call attention to the fact that since the amendment of Art. 1147 Vernon’s Ann.P.C. by the 54th Legislature in 1955, an assault made with any knife under circumstances not amounting to an intent to murder or maim, is ipso facto an aggravated assault.

The evidence sustains the conviction and we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.